Skip to comments.Historical Breakthrough-Proof: Chester Arthur Concealed He Was A British Subject At Birth (Donofrio)
Posted on 12/06/2008 7:17:21 PM PST by STARWISE
[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of "Chester Allan Arthur", Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ]
Ive been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.
Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents heritage.
President Arthurs father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasnt a natural born citizen and he knew it.
Weve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.
How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, How A British Subject Became President, have turned out to be true but not for the reason Hinman suggested.
Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk.
Its been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.
That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.
Weve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthurs true history of having been born as a British citizen.
Chester Arthurs lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880. His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP. His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility.
Chester Arthur was in politics at the time of the 14th Amendments ratification. He was a lawyer and a politician while the 14th Amendment was being debated. It was ratified in 1867.
In that same year Chester Arthur rose to become chairperson of the Executive Committee of the State Republican Committee. He would have been fully cognizant of the natural born citizen issue and that should he ever run for POTUS or VP, problems could arise.
He would have known that if anybody found out his father naturalized after he was born, he could never be President or Vice President.
The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is Gentleman Boss by Thomas Reeves. Its an exhaustive reference.
Many of the blanks in Chester Arthurs legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. He burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)
Gentleman Boss establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthurs father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped in Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina, in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.
By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824.
Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthurs birth) from the Arthur family Bible.
Rest at link
And its no precedent to follow."
Fighting on ... God bless and protect America.
~~Worm turns PING!
Ooops .. few minutes too late.
Please remove this thread.
So then he was an American citizen......or am I missing something here?
You must read the entire article.
keep this thread. more info posted, less need for link.
not sure what the point is, either way....however.
This is key.
I don’t really get his point....or else I’m too consumed with the Mavericks/Atlanta game to care.
If you are born in the U.S., are you not a natural citizen?
Only if you sign on with Donofrio's theory.
That’s usually the way it works down around Brownsville and McAllen.
Yes, you are missing something.
Allen’s birthplace made him an American AT birth, but he was not a citizen BY birth because his father was a British subject.
IOW, Allen was an American citizen, but he was not a natural born citizen and, therefore, was ineligible to be president.
I’m serious. If you are born in the US, are you automatically a natural-born citizen, regardless of the status of your parents?
Right as rain.
Birthplace determines citizenship by operation of law.
Parents’ citizenship determines citizenship by operation of nature.
A natural born citizen attained his American citizenship by descent from his parents (or, possibly, just his father).
That’s the argument.
This would ensure that the presidency was limited to those who were at least second-generation Americans.
According to the United States Constitution, yes.
According to Leo Donofrio, former attorney, amateur professional card-player, and plaintiff in the soon-to-be unceremoniously dismissed Donofrio v. Wells, maybe.
You are automatically a citizen, but that doesn’t mean you are a natural born citizen.
Not according to this argument:
Where does it say in the Constitution that being born in the U.S. makes one a “natural born citizen”? Where in the Constitution is there a definition of “natural born citizen”?
So where is the legal and constitutional discussion of this person’s theory? All I saw was a blogger claiming that someone else’s claims were lies, and then found out he was born in the US anyway, but decided to make a semantics argument out of all of it. And Mavs are ahead by 15 points.
Is there a federal statute that determines how citizenship is determined? Or are these just opinions?
Then what is a natural-born citizen? It’s confusing to me.
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
There are many laws that impact citizenship. However, nowhere has “natural born citizen” been actually defined. That’s one reason somehow getting the Court to address this matter would be useful.
Regardless of its impact on this election, this area of the law needs to be settled.
This was probably quite clear to everyone when the Constitution was ratified and in the century that followed. Gradually, though, the popular idea has taken hold that “natural born citizen” status means one was simply born in the U.S.
That was unlikely to have been the framers’ intent when they wrote the Constitution. The question now is how, when and if it can all be sorted out.
I’ve posted a lot on this, so will just leave it at that for now.
As I understand it, not if either of your parents were subjects/legal citizens of another country when you
I’m sure someone will correct me.
For one to be a ‘natural born citizen’ of the USA one must be born of parents that were BOTH American citizens at the time of the birth. Just being born in the USA does not mean that one is automatically a ‘natural-born citizen’. Now in the case of John McCain his lawyers have argued that since the Canal Zone was under US jurisdiction at the time of his birth in 1936 and that McCain’s parents were both American citizens that John McCain is therefore a natural-born American citizen which you have to be to be ELIGIBLE to be POTUS. The contention by Donfrio is that Obama was born in Hawaii but that because his father was a British national at the time (from Kenya) that makes Obama ineligible to assume the Presidency.
The SC needs to settle this matter as we can see how many differing opinions there are.
And just where is that defined in law?
The contention by Donfrio is that Obama was born in Hawaii but that because his father was a British national at the time (from Kenya) that makes Obama ineligible to assume the Presidency.
Donofrio's contention is that in order to be a natural born U.S. citizen you must be born in the U.S. or on U.S. territory and both parents must be U.S. citizens. McCain was actually born in Panama so according to Donofrio he doesn't qualify.
Unlike Berg’s suit which is based on the citizenship law prevailing in 1961 and the possibility, supported by reports of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother’s recollection, that Obama might have been born in Kenya, Donofrio’s suit is based on the legal theory that ‘natural born citizen’, as the founders meant it, excludes anyone who was a dual citizen at birth, or thereafter. If his theory were accepted by the courts, anyone whose parentage or location of birth created dual citizenship would be barred from the Presidency.
That is not relevant to the question of who is a citizen BY birth.
The first is citizenship attained by operation of law (as your post amply proves). The second is citizenship attained by operation of nature(that is, by descent).
Don't confuse the two or conflate the law and precedents on "citizenship" with the requirement to be a "natural born citizen" to be eligible to be President.
More here if you're interested: [ # 24 ] .
The Supreme Court did settle the issue, over 100 years ago.
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 seems to cover it all pretty well. I see no room for argument.
Not at all. Everytime one of these threads get started my bullshit detection meter pegs out and I have to find out what y'all are up to this time.
Then where's all the fun?
Leo beat 607 other poker players in Atlantic City to win a tournament plus he has won other events. He is not an amateur poker player but you appear to be an amateur trool or semi-professional Obot.
I suggest you read the research or go back to shining Obama’s shoes.
On FoxSportsSouthwest where the Mavs are pulling off another one. :)
Because woman had no standing in the 1800’s only men could bring the linage forward!
Well just damn!
You forgot to bold the important part
“at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”
‘US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 seems to cover it all pretty well. I see no room for argument.’
Agree. President=President elect:
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
It matters less..........they could have adopted it on 9/11 or 10,000 BC.......born in the US, be elected President.
From another thread:
the Naturalization act of 2000 states that a child born before 1983 has citizenship determined by the fathers nationality.
there is a difference between natural born and native born.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.